tomspc

j5 wrote:Um, looking back at this thread, there is one positive comment and a couple indifferent. The rest is outrage. Hardly "praise". Unless if by "praise" you mean that it is in the fog. In that case, recall that LyonsCC's was also in the fog at the time.

The lack of outrage, disappointment, and the silence from the regulars who usually jump all over this kind of stuff vs what happened to Lyoncc last week is praise.

It's like a toddler who is misbehaving, if the parent doesn't correct them and remains silent, then they are telling the child that their bad behavior is acceptable.

bluetuba

tomspc wrote:The lack of outrage, disappointment, and the silence from the regulars who usually jump all over this kind of stuff vs what happened to Lyoncc last week is praise.

It's like a toddler who is misbehaving, if the parent doesn't correct them and remains silent, then they are telling the child that their bad behavior is acceptable.

Ramyb has been getting away with all kinds of crap for like 3 years now and still prints anyway. I think most of us are just too tired and apathetic to continue lighting the fires.

Lyonscc is a newcomer and perhaps still persuadable if the community points out "Hey clip art is not allowed" If he keeps doing it I'm sure there'll be more drama from the community but ultimately it's up to Woot to enforce.

For the record, it does look like Ramyb did draw this himself and it's not a trace or clipart. I'd take more issue with him trying to make money off an Obama slogan right before an election, but that's not "illegal" per the derby rules. Just marooned IMO.

"You can't just dress a Minion like Spock, and add a caption that says "Logical Me". There's a prison for people like that. Below my house."

nestersoup

From Last weeks fight, a BootsBoots Quote that still seems applicable.

BootsBoots wrote:Anyway... I don't think it really matters if you drew the image just by looking at a reference or not. Whether you're live tracing, sketching over, or drawing something completely freehand, if it ends up looking exactly like your reference image, then you've copied someone else's work. It's not yours to use.

samanthastroud

seenkylie

mjc613 wrote:Are you or were you a contributor at FightPassport.com? I found this drawing there with minor changes to the eyes, and without a badminton racket or shuttlecock? Woot only accepts original artwork that is not owned by someone else, so be sure you have permission from that site to use this, even if you are the original artist.

samanthastroud

ramyb wrote:I am a little surprised that this entry has caused so much controversy, and I've come to learn that participating in such discussions usually leads to a much worse response, but I can't help but jump in here anyway.

First of all, tracing is not the same as referencing by any stretch of the imagination. If you look up "evolution" on google images, you will find thousands of nearly identical images, as this representation has become absolutely the standard in terms of depicting evolution. In creating this image, I didn't even look at one specific image, I just freehanded it with the google images section open to pick three stages that could represent the idea. And for the record, you can try as hard as you want to overlay the images (or this with any other evolution image for that matter), and you will not be able to because I drew it entirely from scratch. There is nothing even remotely questionable about that.

Secondly, the joke here is not that Obama is a monkey. The joke is that evolution is change. It is taking the word change, and applying a different meaning of it to the poster. This shirt is not telling the world that you believe in Obama's message and that he is a monkey. It is telling the world that you believe in evolution, and that in a general sense you are a person who believes things based on evidence. That is all.

I thought this idea fit the theme, had an easy to understand message, and used a simple (and relatable) graphic to get the point across. There really isn't much ambiguity here, and if you want to intentionally distort the message to serve your purpose, that is your prerogative.

This must be pretty frustrating as an artist who just took a very popular image (which we see all the time and it's always identical)and put a political spin on it (propoganda?)and everyone blows it out of proportion. I am starting to think if anyone other than Ramby eneterd this design it wouldn't have been taken so badly. That being said if people are taking it to be a racial issue then intensions aside there is a problem. I for one thought that this was pretty clever at first glance and wouldn't have made the racial connection, but that's just me

tomspc

samanthastroud wrote:This must be pretty frustrating as an artist who just took a very popular image (which we see all the time and it's always identical)and put a political spin on it (propoganda?)and everyone blows it out of proportion. I am starting to think if anyone other than Ramby eneterd this design it wouldn't have been taken so badly. That being said if people are taking it to be a racial issue then intensions aside there is a problem. I for one thought that this was pretty clever at first glance and wouldn't have made the racial connection, but that's just me

First, anyone who just steals others work is not an artist. I have photoshop. I can't even draw a circle. I guess that makes me an artist.
Second, I don't give a rats-you-know-what if it's Ramyb or anyone else.
Third, it would definitely be considered racist where I come from.
Fourth, there's nothing clever about taking 2 pieces of art and merging them together. It took me all of about 10 mins to duplicate this in photoshop.
Fifth, the Obama slogan/sign is POP-CULTURE

tomspc

nestersoup wrote:BootsBoots wrote:
Anyway... I don't think it really matters if you drew the image just by looking at a reference or not. Whether you're live tracing, sketching over, or drawing something completely freehand, if it ends up looking exactly like your reference image, then you've copied someone else's work. It's not yours to use.

phoenixgirrl

tomspc wrote:First, anyone who just steals others work is not an artist. I have photoshop. I can't even draw a circle. I guess that makes me an artist.
Second, I don't give a rats-you-know-what if it's Ramyb or anyone else.
Third, it would definitely be considered racist where I come from.
Fourth, there's nothing clever about taking 2 pieces of art and merging them together. It took me all of about 10 mins to duplicate this in photoshop.
Fifth, the Obama slogan/sign is POP-CULTURE

Yes. This.

I live in the Northeast, in an area with few minorities, and it would also be viewed as racist here. I would be embarrassed to be seen in it.

tomspc

bluetuba wrote:Ramyb has been getting away with all kinds of crap for like 3 years now and still prints anyway. I think most of us are just too tired and apathetic to continue lighting the fires.

Lyonscc is a newcomer and perhaps still persuadable if the community points out "Hey clip art is not allowed" If he keeps doing it I'm sure there'll be more drama from the community but ultimately it's up to Woot to enforce.

For the record, it does look like Ramyb did draw this himself and it's not a trace or clipart. I'd take more issue with him trying to make money off an Obama slogan right before an election, but that's not "illegal" per the derby rules. Just marooned IMO.

Sad. Ok so apparently there are these unwritten rules somewhere that I have not seen. Basically being an artist is not required. Original artwork is not required. One can steal others work so long as they claim that they drew it. I Got it now.

Caddywompus

Then the propaganda poster is working, it's suppose it grab your attention with fear.

Gather 'round kiddies for a story about headless dinosaurs and name calling. OC Marsh discover the Apatosaurus, meaning Deceptive Lizard in 1877. Two years later he found a larger but incomplete species and named it the Brontosaurs. When the skeleton was finally put on display the skull he used came from another quarry which later would turn out to be a completely different dinosaur called the Camarasaurus. The correct skull turned out to belong to the Apatosaurus, which was just a juvenile of the specimen he found two years later. So the Brontosaurs was actually the Deceptive Lizard all along, the Apatosaurs.

What's funny is that this mistake was known for quite a while but they still used and taught the Brontosaurs name despite it being incorrect. Probably because "Thunder Lizard" sounds awesome.

aerc712

tarheel239

As a graphic design student, I just have to throw my two cents in here. You could spend YEARS arguing this. Designers often do. I've sat through HOURS of lectures about how to differentiate between paying homage to good design and plagiarism. Unfortunately, nobody has an answer. I think arguing that the evolution sequence is the IP of one entity is rediculous. Even if they did use live trace of an existing image, the point is that this image is now almost iconic in our society. Christians might as well sue the people that make the Darwin fish things for stealing the fish idea.
The Obama part of it, at least to me, has more grounds for questioning. First off it is a pop culture deal, but, it *technically* is the IP of Obama/his campaign.

All that aside- I think the design is it's own thing entirely- combining two unlike elements to create a cohesive design, and a clever statement. And I like the design.

j5

tomspc wrote:Sad. Ok so apparently there are these unwritten rules somewhere that I have not seen. Basically being an artist is not required. Original artwork is not required. One can steal others work so long as they claim that they drew it. I Got it now.

Don't think of it that way, think of it as "what is the probability we won't be able to sell this shirt due to infringement?" An artist admitting use of "reference" images increases those chances. Here's an historical anecdote.

tomspc

j5 wrote:Don't think of it that way, think of it as "what is the probability we won't be able to sell this shirt due to infringement?" An artist admitting use of "reference" images increases those chances. Here's an historical anecdote.

Good point. Arrogance is all I can say to that. Ramyb is so arrogant that he doesn't care if everyone knows he's a hack, they'll print his crap anyway.

cjbel87

Nekkochan

What science joke am I missing through not recognizing the abbreviation "ChIPs"? Or alternatively, not knowing more about the process of making computer chips? Google has been unhelpful. I assume there must be a joke, otherwise I can't see that the slogan makes sense.

kylemittskus

IMO, this shirt is plagiarized. The Obama slogan and the image are too close for comfort.

HOWEVER, if you are making some comparison between Obama and monkeys, that's all you. I am so god d*amn sick of this political correct BS. This is a joke, playing off a political slogan and evolution. And the joke would still be funny if it were a white guy who had the "change" slogan. Screw your political correctness. But screw Ramy for more rule-pushing crap.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

Woot.com is operated by Woot Services LLC.
Products on Woot.com are sold by Woot, Inc., other than items on Wine.Woot which are sold by the seller specified on the product detail page.
Product narratives are for entertainment purposes and frequently employ
literary point of view;
the narratives do not express Woot's editorial opinion.
Aside from literary abuse, your use of this site also subjects you to Woot's
terms of use
and
privacy policy.
Woot may designate a user comment as a Quality Post, but that doesn't mean we agree with or guarantee anything said or linked to in that post.